By Ciara LaVelle
By Jose D. Duran
By Kat Bein
By Juan Barquin
By Ciara LaVelle
By George Martinez
By Kat Bein
By Ciara LaVelle
New Times: What is your opinion of the general landscape of Miami?
Plater-Zyberk: This is a time of great opportunity in Miami to change things through building. Except for a few places [like] Coral Gables, Miami Springs, and Miami Beach, in most areas building was a response to the market -- it's like a lot of America's landscape. It's part of our tradition ... it's generic and our development reflects this character.
Do you believe we can alter the environment through planning and architecture to create a more meaningful place?
Obviously I believe so because I'm an architect and one who began building one building at a time, building something that gives pleasure and enhances the habitat and can become economically sustainable. And people are constantly interested in moving to Miami -- we have an opportunity that we shouldn't waste.
There are three players who can make a place wonderful or destroy it. They are the public sector, which builds a few buildings only; the not-for-profit sector, which builds housing and universities; and the private sector, which carries the rest. The public sector also provides the public places, such as the streets. You have DOT [Department of Transportation] that is concerned with the flow of people; others with zoning codes. See it as the public sector that makes the horizontal floor, and the private sector that makes the walls. The ideal is to have all these parties work together.
What's the present dynamic among these players? How can you get them all going in the same direction?
There's a regulatory framework nowadays; zoning codes and urban design rules are made in public, so the private sector has plenty of input, as does the public and the not-for-profit sectors ... but I must say it's very complex. It wasn't always like that. After World War II the public and the private realm thought they were doing different things. For instance DOT thought it was doing traffic only, just getting cars through; the people making the buildings had a different vision. Each player was doing its own thing; they didn't see it as a whole.
Can you think of an example of this in Miami?
Sure, the way SW Eighth Street was remade 25 years ago. As the city grew it was determined that [the street] needed to move people, and it was changed into a one-way to help traffic get into the city. It stopped being a place to come and became instead a place to go through. It has repercussions for the street as such. For the people living there it was still a main street, but for [others] Eighth Street is a one-way artery, and it's kind of a schizophrenic piece of the city.
This is a good place to define what New Urbanism is.
After World War II we grew in ways we didn't anticipate. Prosperity and a particular vision brought us cars, metropolitan growth, roads, highways ... we ended [up] being overgrown. Now we have to think how to cope with that and come up with alternatives to make a different, more sustainable, and environmentally attractive metropolis. It turns out there were some people in different disciplines, not only architects, but planners, attorneys, engineers, landscape architects, city majors that were already working on pieces of this alternative. So we formed a congress for the New Urbanism ...
One of the problems of Modernism was its elitism. Is New Urbanism for a participatory input in the design process?
Yes, we are; it's even part of our charter. Something we understood quite early is that this movement wanted to change things, but it needed to be inclusive to be successful. And at this point New Urbanism is a force -- we've helped spawn similar organizations in several parts of the world. We meet once a year and work on initiatives that are intended to educate or change policy.
How do you cope with suburban sprawl?
Suburban sprawl and urban divestments go hand in hand. Because most places have grown [out] into the suburbs, there's a greater land usage in ratio per person than ever before. And people that moved out left others behind. So there are not only environmental issues, but also social problems of isolation and segregation ... that growth has become very expensive.
New Urbanism promotes a program of mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly streets, accessible public and civic institutions, and a landscape that reflects local history and climate ...
It's about walkability. We don't walk anymore. We need to make places where people want to walk.
Some of your critics have suggested that New Urbanism is basically against the car; that as much as we may hate its excess, it's here to stay. Is being for walking being against the car?